Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia De Arte Et
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
304 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis ISSN 2081-3325 Studia de Arte et Educatione Error in Art 14 ∙ 2019 Kolegium Recenzentów prof. Grzegorz Banaszkiewicz dr hab. Jacek Dłużewski prof. dr hab. Ignacy S. Fiut dr hab. Rafał Jakubowicz dr hab. KingaAgnieszka Nowak, Kłakówna prof. ASP prof. Jarosław Modzelewski prof. Stanisław Rodziński prof. Stanisław Tabisz dr hab. Paweł Tański, prof. UMK dr hab. Feliks Tomaszewski, prof. UG prof. Jacek Waltoś prof. dr hab. Seweryna Wysłouch Radaprof. Grzegorz Naukowa Sztwiertnia Adam Brincken, Tadeusz Budrewicz, Franciszek Chmielowski, Bogusław Krasnowolski, Rita Mikučionyte, Richard Noyce, Romuald Oramus, Lucjan Orzech, Stanisław Rodziński, RedakcjaXenophon NaukowaSachinis, Barbara Simcoe, Milan Sokol, Seweryna Wysłouch Arkadiusz Póltorak, Krzysztof Siatka (zastępca redaktora naczelnego), Bernadeta Stano Redaktorzy(sekretarz redakcji), naukowi Diana tomu Wasilewska (redaktor naczelny), Karolina Kolenda, Krzysztof Siatka © Copyright by Wydawnictwo Naukowe UP, Kraków 2019 Wersją pierwotną tomu jest plik dostępny na stronie internetowej: http:⫽studiadearte.up.krakow.pl ISSN 2081-3325 e-ISSN 2300-5912 DOI 10.24917/20813325.14 Wydawnictwo Naukowe UP Redakcja/Dział Promocji 30–084 Kraków, ul. Podchorążych 2 tel./fax 12 662-63-83, tel. 12 662-67-56 e-mail: [email protected] http:⫽www.wydawnictwoup.pl druk i oprawa: Zespół Poligraficzny WN UP Introduction Technical errors that occur when a medium is used, as well as logical or cognitive er- rors, are commonly seen as challenges and obstacles in a creative process. Technical proficiency has been an indispensable and celebrated aspect of artistic practice from the very beginning of its modern history, indeed, its very essence, persistent- ly inhabiting the language used to describe popular and admired artworks. Terms such as “masterpiece” and “Kunstwerk”, although fully meaningful when used in the context of the master-apprentice guild system of the pre-modern times, when repe- tition and imitation were prevailing methods of education, still define the linguistic and mental universe of values through which art is perceived and assessed. Meanwhile, the history of 20th-century art, but also a broader history of hu- man progress, the advancement of science and developments in technology, have shown us that to attain proficiency or mastery one must follow established criteria. But to make a breakthrough, to push the boundaries forward, one must take a path previously untrodden, by conscious choice but also by sheer mistake. Numerous achievements are made incidentally, that is, by accident, on the margin of conducted research and investigations, along the route taken to reach a different goal. In visual art, errors can also offer a source of inspiration and an insight into oth- erwise unknown reality. Very often, they are made outside the author’s awareness, yet with the support of the viewer, who shows the courage to act against traditions or established rules. The artist’s certainty about his or her intentions, and the view- er’s openness, seem necessary for their communication to succeed. But the way art is experienced often runs against the author’s concept and contrary to the viewer’s expectations. In the 20th and 21st century, the reliance of art on the criteria of mastery and technical perfection have been called into question on numerous occasions and from a variety of perspectives, from the postulates of de-professionalisation advanced by Jean Dubuffet and the Art Brut movement and the notion of “de-skilling” recurrent in recent practices, through the Post-Structuralist investigations of slips, omissions, and unconscious errors, to the queer politics that favours failure over perfection and indeterminacy over clear-cut categories. To a large degree, the dynamics of the development of contemporary art has relied on moments when the very logic of success and failure, hit and miss, was called into question. Moments when artists re- fused to let artistic practice be swallowed up by the overriding pressure of success, quantifiable in the capitalist categories such as profit and progress and – instead – allowed themselves to fail, err, or disappoint. In this volume, authors are interested in the discrepancies that occur between the intention and effect of actions undertaken by artists and researchers. Thus [4] described approach determines the illusion and uncertainty that reveal themselves en route to experience and intellectual cognition. They examine the anxiety or even true fear of making a mistake, which makes an impact on immediate and distant future, but also the pleasure that errors may bring. The notion of error and its econ- omy is analysed in a broad theoretical context (historical, cultural, philosophical, sociological, and political), as something as yet unrecognised – potential obstacle or side effect that will bring unexpected results. Karolina Kolenda FOLIA 304 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia de Arte et Educatione 14 (2019) ISSN 2081-3325 DOI 10.24917/20813325.14.1 Camilla Wilkinson Distortion, Illusion and Transformation: the Evolution of Dazzle Painting, a Camouflage System to Protect Allied Shipping from Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1917–1918 In October 1917 the War Cabinet was notified in Admiralty Memorandum 2256 “Dazzle Scheme of painting ships” that artist Norman Wilkinson’s camouflage pro- posal to paint the entire external surfaces of vessels in highly contrasting asymmet- ric patterns would be applied to merchant and some naval vessels with the aim of disrupting the crippling effects on British commerce from Unrestricted Submarine Warfare waged by Germany in January of that year. This paper, based on close reading of the surviving archives of design material and documentation concerning the 14–18 War Dazzle camouflage scheme, provides a means to re-interpret the visual language of the designs that have been read (or misread) and popularised through contextualisation in art history and association with notions of avant-garde spatial practice since 1919. Testing and representing this argument has been achieved through drawing research methodologies as well as textual and archival research. Dazzle Painting was developed in response to a major offensive during the 14– 18 War by the U-boat section of the Imperial German Navy. Frustrated by British naval blockade of its ports, Germany declared the sea around Britain a war zone and waged Unrestricted Submarine Warfare on British and neutral merchant shipping. This resulted in enormous numbers of ships being sunk, causing1 considerable loss of life and loss of vital supplies to Britain and Allied nations. The huge losses destabi- lised finance in the United Kingdom and were reported to be an attack on the civilian population. In response to the number of ships being sunk, by September 1917 the Admiralty had deployed a number of tactics2 simultaneously to counter submarine attack that included Dazzle Camouflage. 1 Between February and April 1917, U-boats sank more than 500 merchant ships. In the second half of April, an average of 13 ships were sunk each day. See: Mason, 2018. 2 The use of naval convoy to escort merchant ships was believed to be the most suc- cessful tactic, for ships travelling alone, zig-zagging was recommended to prevent the subma- rine tracking a ship’s course. The introduction of different tactics simultaneously has made gauging the success of Dazzle Camouflage more complex. [6] Camilla Wilkinson It was the marine artist and graphic illustrator Norman Wilkinson who invent- ed the Dazzle Camouflage system and persuaded the Admiralty to let him set up the Naval Camouflage Dazzle Section, giving priority to the protection of merchant ship- ping. Dazzle camouflage was a system based on carefully tested designs applied in paint to the entire external surfaces of a ship to create an illusion of distortion. Both hull and superstructure were painted with bold monochrome geometric shapes in highly contrasting tones of black, white, blue, grey and green. The juxtaposition of the shapes, sometimes figurative, mostly abstract, was designed to distort the out- ward appearance of the ship viewed from the low perspective of submarine peri- scope. The aim was to confuse U-boat commanders as they tried to calculate their position in relation to Allied and neutral ships in order to fire a torpedo. In order to calculate the trajectory of a torpedo, the U-boat commander used his telescopic eye to calculate the relative course of the target ship as well as its speed and size. The illusory patterns were designed to falsify the angle on the bow and frustrate the use of the graticule, which required measurement of vertical elements of the superstructure, poop deck or masts. The visual confusion wrought by Dazzle Camouflage sought to lengthen the time a submarine was exposed at the surface of the sea, making it vulnerable to sighting and attack by enemy ships. It could also result in firing the torpedo on a false course resulting in wasted torpedoes. As well as confusing the U-boat commanders there is evidence to show that the classified status of Dazzle-painting resulted in confusion among the foreman paint- ers, merchant seamen and naval commanders as to how Dazzle should work. The term camouflage, which was otherwise understood to mean rendering an object less visible,An was Explanation now reversed of the as ObjectsDazzle patternsof “Dazzle” appeared by the vibrantAdmiralty and dynamic at close range. As late as September 1918 a circular was issued to ship owners and masters titled : “The designs for painting Merchant ships are not haphazard arrangements of colours, but are made after careful experiments on models of ships carried out from a Submarine’s peri- scope with a view to obtaining the maximum distortion.” A century later, the narrative for Dazzle Camouflage is still one of misconcep- tions, misinterpretation and misappropriation. The artifacts and surviving material from Dazzle-painting have been open to interpretation by art, maritime and cul- tural historians, artists, designers and musicians. From Armistice in October 1918 onwards, the rich body of artwork that recorded the 14-18 War was exhibited in public exhibitions.